Gibbons Law Alert

On August 9, 2012

Effective August 1, 2012, Pennsylvania became the most recent state to adopt amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure addressing the scope of, and limitations on, discovery of electronically-stored information. The amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure come more than six years after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to address e-discovery. In that time, federal courts have developed a complicated body of law that has often confounded practitioners and jurists alike. Eschewing that complexity, Pennsylvania has essentially rejected much of the federal approach and adopted a more streamlined and “proportional” approach to e-discovery practice.

“Shield Act” Introduced to Thwart NPEs . . . .

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On August 8, 2012

We previously reported on the new 35 U.S.C. § 299 of the America Invents Act. This statute aims, inter alia, to reduce the ability of a patent owner to join multiple, unrelated defendants in a single action, which is a tactic often employed by non-practicing entities (“NPEs”), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls,” who press defendants for nuisance value settlements.

“Did I Just Get a Tweet From Goldman Sachs?!?”: Increased Expansion and Scrutiny of Social Media in the Financial Services Industry

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Corporate Information and Records Management Policies

On August 7, 2012

With the increased use of social media by financial services industry participants, more activity and scrutiny can be expected from financial regulators. This is not to mention the litigation from investors that could arise out of, for example, the misinterpreted or well-meaning post from an advisor that simply did not translate to “less than 140 characters.” It appears that there is a trend (amongst at least the larger financial institutions) that a united and pre-approved voice is best for now.

NY Court Denies Summary Judgment in Seemingly Clear-Cut Case Under NY Navigation Law

by David J. Freeman

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On August 6, 2012

An upstate Supreme Court Justice has denied summary judgment on liability under Section 181 of the state’s Navigation Law against a company whose predecessor owned and operated a petroleum refinery on the site for almost 60 years. The decision in One Flint Street LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corp, et al., Index No. 2011/4470 (July 18, 2012, Monroe Co. Sup. Ct.) establishes a high bar for obtaining summary judgment in Nav Law cases.

Third Circuit Sets High Bar for Proof of Price-Fixing, Affirms Dismissal on Summary Judgment Based on Twombly

by Kevin R. Reich

Posted in Antitrust / Appellate

On August 6, 2012

The Third Circuit’s July 27, 2012, opinion in Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group, Inc., confirms that an antitrust plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence of price-fixing must demonstrate something more than merely parallel behavior, not only to survive a motion to dismiss, as the Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, but also to defeat summary judgment. Thus, unless a plaintiff can present record evidence that is plausibly suggestive of, and not just consistent with, an illegal agreement to fix prices, a defendant moving for summary judgment should prevail. Indeed, without evidence of a manifest agreement not to compete, Superior Offshore International (“SOI”) suggests that courts will not infer an illegal price-fixing arrangement even where participants in an oligopoly market raise prices despite a weakening of demand for their services.

FLASH: Don’t Forget About Those Seven Provisions of the AIA Effective September 16, 2012!

by Estelle J. Tsevdos, Ph.D.

Posted in Patent

On August 6, 2012

Starting on September 16th, seven important provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) will take effect: inter partes review, post grant review, supplemental examination, third-party “preissuance submission,” substitute statement in lieu of the inventor’s oath/declaration, transitional program for covered business method patents, and citation of patent owner statements in a patent file. Not all of the provisions are applicable to every patent and/or patent application. So, it is important that one consults with patent counsel before taking action. Below are helpful takeaways and summaries of these key changes. More information can be found on the USPTO’s website.

Dancer’s Facebook Messages With Opt-In Class Members are Protected Work Product

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On August 3, 2012

A group of exotic dancers in New York recently found themselves partially exposed — well, their Facebook messages, that is. A federal judge in In re Penthouse Executive Club Compensation Litigation, 10-CV1145 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y May 10, 2012) decided that one of the plaintiff-dancer’s Facebook communications with non-party-dancers about joining the lawsuit were not protected from disclosure, but that Facebook communications between the plaintiff-dancer and opt-in plaintiffs were protected from disclosure. The Court’s application of the well-established work product doctrine and common interest rule to social media communications reminds lawyers to exercise caution when using social media for discovery purposes and to warn their clients to similarly proceed with caution.

Implementation of USPTO Rules Under the AIA is Underway: Preissuance Submissions

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On July 30, 2012

35 U.S.C. § 122(e), adopted last fall as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), conditions third party submissions to the USPTO for consideration and inclusion in an application file. Recently, the USPTO published the final rules regulating these submissions by third parties: Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 Fed. Reg. 42150 (2012). That is to say, the USPTO provided the requirements and guidance to anyone wishing to have the Office consider patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance during the examination of a pending application. The new rules pave the way for a third party to limit the scope of a pending patent application, particularly a competitor’s application, in a meaningful way.

Third Circuit Establishes Test for Determining “Joint Employer” Liability Under the FLSA

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Wage and Hour

On July 26, 2012

A recent Third Circuit decision, In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation, addresses the circumstances under which a parent company will be liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) as a “joint employer” of employees of the parent’s subsidiaries. The Third Circuit’s opinion gives concrete guidance to employers confronted by the broad definition of “employer” set forth in the FLSA’s regulations, providing a standard for assessing joint employer liability. (The FLSA defines an employer as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.”) Although the standard announced by the Third Circuit is by no means a bright-line test, it does provide fair notice to employers of the factors that will determine joint employer status.

Significant Amendments to New York’s SEQRA Regulations in the Works

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental and Green Issues

On July 25, 2012

On July 11, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) released the draft scope for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on proposed amendments to the regulations that implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). These amendments, intended to streamline the SEQRA process, would create a number of significant changes to the regulations, the first changes since 1996.